Hear-say. His opinion. They have to an extent, but not "only". Do all photographers that follow Dombrovskis and Truchanas focus their photography on "conservation" aims? What about the concept of being able to show somebody, through a photograph, that a remote wilderness location might just happen to be beautiful? Even without human influence...In Tasmania, Olegas Truchanas, Peter Dombrovskis and their heirs have continued this association of views of untouched wilderness with conservation aims.
Keh?Almost all modern wilderness photographs rely on an obvious lie—there is never any evidence of humanity in the picture. So while rationally we must deduce that if a photograph was made, a photographer must have been present (along with all the paraphernalia of their profession), the pictures always pretend the reverse.
The denial of human interface from within wilderness photography is due mainly to the definition of "wilderness", is it not?Does this denial of a human interface serve to separate humankind symbolically from the rest of nature, and subtly perpetuate in the cultural imagination an antagonistic nature-culture relationship?
Clutching at straws a bit here, I think.Can we truly identify with nature and care for it, until we see (and represent) ourselves as a part of it?
His interpretation, I gather. Certainly NOT mine.While wilderness photography embraces the nineteenth century view of Nature as God...
They're not.Not all wilderness photographs have to be transparent windows on an unpeopled nature.
Postmodernism reiterates that all representations, however naturalistic, are fictions.
I think I might now understand what post-modernism means
the suitable fate of philosophers
Brett wrote:Probably the most interesting thing is the vitriol directed at the author for dare floating the assumption that wilderness photography is more like propaganda than reality. Especially given the frequently stated rules of how to play nicely on this site.
Clownfish wrote:The star drawings were quite interesting; mixing star trails with the sort of imagery you see from particle colliders.
Brett wrote:No problem with that. Just wondering what phrase in the article that you derived the term killjoy from? I did not see anywhere where the author of the article advocated against wilderness or photographs that portray the beauty being bad just that in the wilderness genre the overwhelming emphasis is on the beauty and this means that if that is all a person saw of the wilderness from a hospital bed they would not be getting the full understanding of wilderness. Similar to the view a person only seeing propaganda would form of a country or ideology.
Brett wrote:Hi Photohiker so you "projected" your feelings Oh boy I must have spent way too much time reading up in my purist of the person of interest
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests